This section of the website
covers the brief studies in the points below, any of which may be viewed by
clicking on the links. You'll eventually need the Adobe Acrobat 5.0
Reader, though. It's available free
if you don't have it.

In
a nutshell, I'm a trained scholar in Hebrew Bible and ancient Semitic languages and care
about my field and its resources. That means I have taken real classes
in these languages and the ancient texts from real professors in
real universities. I am not stumbling around in the dark. My
knowledge isn't just based on the fact that I can use a library.
Getting a Ph.D. in this area really does matter. I know many who come to this website
are frustrated by "academese" and a seeming unwillingness (it's
more than imaginary) of academics to consider alternative research
on the ancient world. I would agree with you that there is a
"knowledge filter" in academia (I think of Cremo and Thompson's amazing efforts in
"Forbidden Archaeology" when I say that), but that does not justify poor
scholarship and fabrication of "data" to prop up ideas. It is
illegitimate to complain that academics should look at alternate ideas and
then turn around and refuse to look at what the original sources
say. Whether you want to accept it or not, when you take Sitchin's
interpretations of stories over the word meanings the scribes themselves left us
(they made dictionaries back then too!), this justifies academics
treating alternate material with disdain. This situation should not be.
We should look and be willing to slay academic (and even theological) sacred
cows; you should respect the results of centuries of work in the
field by people who do this for a living.

This
analysis focuses on the demonstrable fact that the "sun"
symbol on this seal (which is
essential to allegedly depicting the solar system) is not the sun. The
actual sun symbol used on literally hundreds of seals, monuments, and other
artwork from Sumer and Mesopotamia is shown to the reader via
photos and compared to the symbol on this seal. It's not even
close. I include examples where Sitchin's symbol occurs side-by-side with
the real sun symbol so there can be no mistaking the fact that the
Sumerians and Mesopotamians did in fact distinguish these
symbols. This analysis erodes the entire foundation of Sitchin's 12
planet hypothesis.

The
goal here was to amass for readers every occurrence of the word "nibiru" in
ancient cuneiform texts. Fortunately, this is possible because of the diligent work of
the compilers of the well known Chicago Assyrian Dictionary,
which bases its entries on exhaustive compilations of all cuneiform
material known to the present day (there's a reason its taken decades to
compile!). The study shows - from the texts themselves, not my
opinion - that "Nibiru" is not a planet beyond Pluto and that the Anunnaki
gods are never associated with it. These ideas are fabrications.
Additionally, this study briefly details the sources left to us by the
Mesopotamian scribes that are of an astronomical nature, and
addresses Sitchin's "god to planet" matchups that he uses to reconstruct the
cosmology of earth and our solar system. In other words,
when Sitchin says "the god Marduk is the planet Nibiru" and proceeds to
read this equation (and others) into the Sumero-Akkadian texts to
interpret them, I compare such equations to the actual lists in
cuneiform where Mesopotamian astronomers struck god = planet
equations. Not surprisingly, they don't agree.

This study focuses on
the fact that, though elohim is morphologically plural (its
"shape" or grammatical form is plural), the meaning of the word is almost
always singular (one god) in the Hebrew Bible. This is the
case over 2500 times. The same phenomenon is also present in
Sumerian and Akkadian. The reader does not need to know Hebrew to
follow the discussion, as I have color-coded the grammatical
features and examples illustrating the truth of this well known (to
those who know Hebrew anyway) feature of biblical Hebrew. The
section also contains a response to Erik Parker's (Sitchin's webmaster)
attempts to rebut the material. Erik has never studied Hebrew
or any ancient language, but he nevertheless tried to
respond. It isn't pretty.

This study details
the impossibility of Sitchin's translations of "nephilim" as "those
who came down" or "people of the fiery rockets" in light of Hebrew vocabulary and
grammar. I know it sounds mind-numbing, but again I have tried to
illustrate the concepts and problems. It also contains a
scan of a page from one of Sitchin's books where he could not tell the
difference between Aramaic and Hebrew - an amazing mistake if he's an
expert.

The
point of this discussion is to show that Sitchin's translations of certain Sumero-Akkadian words cannot
be correct for the simple reason that the ancient Mesopotamian
dictionaries (yes, they kept bilingual dictionaries and we have them
today) translate the words of their own language in ways that
unanimously contradict Mr.Sitchin. You either believe him
or the ancient Sumerians / Mesopotamians. Seems like an easy
call.

An Open
Letter to Zecharia Sitchin
My goal here is to set
the record straight for all who care about
thinking and paying attention to facts
(the original sources) in these
matters. I accept the sad truth
that many disciples of Zecharia Sitchin
will not be swayed by any amount of
data from the cuneiform texts.
They literally will believe Sitchin
over the Sumerians and Mesopotamians
themselves. There isn't much I
can do or say to such cultic
obsessions. On the other hand,
there are those out there who
really do want to think, are willing to
change their minds, and who
care about the primary sources.
This letter is as much for you as
Mr. Sitchin. The
facts are these:

I have had this letter
online for two years and it has never been answered. I haven't even seen some sort of resume or transcript
proving Sitchin has ever even studied ancient languages. My
CV is on this website.

I was asked if I was
willing to debate Mr. Sitchin two years ago by Art Bell on the air, and was asked again by Coast to Coast's
weekend host, Barbara Simpson the same question months later. I accepted immediately; Mr. Sitchin has been
silent.

The only person who
has responded to anything on this website has been the intrepid but
unprepared Erik Parker, Sitchin's
webmaster. To date Erik has
not answered the questions below. He has not produced a single
text that says Nibiru is a planet beyond Pluto, or that associates the
Anunnaki with Nibiru. He has not refuted (or even understood)
the points of Hebrew grammar I have introduced regarding "nephilim"
and "elohim". (And in fairness, he can't be expected
to since he has no language training). He has not
explained why the Sumero-Akkadian story of building the tower (Sitchin
says rocket ship) has the object being built with bricks, or why such
advanced ETs as the Anunnaki came here with internal combustion
engines. Most importantly, he has not explained why there has
been no effort to arrange any sort of debate. Instead, Erik has
attacked my motives and tried to twist parts of my discussions into
"agreeing" with Sitchin (which is why I reproduce all our
exchanges in whole - so you know who is twisting what). Zero
response. Zero substance.

Don't
believe me? Have the courage to look through these studies
yourself. I have nothing to hide, and always try to give the
reader sources to check everything.

Introductory
Comments:

The work of Zecharia
Sitchin was brought to my attention just over a year ago, shortly after I
completed my book, The Façade.As
a trained scholar in ancient Semitic languages
with a lifelong interest in UFOs and paranormal phenomena, I was naturally
enthused about Mr. Sitchin's studies, particularly since I had also heard he was
a Sumerian scholar.I thought I had
found a kindred spirit, perhaps even a guide to navigating the possible
intersection of my academic disciplines with ufology, a discipline unfairly
ridiculed by the academic mainstream.Unfortunately,
I was wrong.

What follows will no
doubt trouble some readers.I have
come to learn that Mr. Sitchin has an avid following, and so that is inevitable.Nevertheless, I feel it my responsibility as someone who has earned
credentials in the languages, cultures, and history of antiquity to point out
the errors in Mr. Sitchin's work.Indeed,
this is the academic enterprise.I
have yet to find anyone with credentials or demonstrable lay-expertise in
Sumerian, Akkadian, or any of the other ancient Semitic languages who positively
assesses Mr. Sitchin's academic work.

The reader must realize
that the substance of my disagreement is not due to "translation
philosophy," as though Mr. Sitchin and I merely disagree over possible
translations of certain words.What
is at stake is the integrity of the cuneiform tablets themselves, along with the
legacy of Sumer and Mesopotamian scribes. Very simply, the
ancient Mesopotamians compiled their own dictionaries - we have them and
they have been published since mid-century. The words Mr.
Sitchin tells us refer to rocket ships have no such meanings according to the
ancient Mesopotamians themselves. Likewise when Mr. Sitchin draws
connections between Sumero-Mesopotamian gods and stories that simply do not
exist in the literature (like insisting the Sumerians believed there were twelve
planets and having the Anunnaki living on Nibiru, the supposed 12th planet), my
argument with him is one that opposes such fabrications, not just one how words
are translated.To
persist in embracing Mr. Sitchin's views on this matter (and a host of others)
amounts to rejecting the legacy of the ancient Sumerian and Akkadian scribes
whose labors have come down to us from the ages.Put bluntly, is it more coherent to believe a Mesopotamian scribe's
definition of a word, or Mr. Sitchin's?

I do believe that Mr.
Sitchin has done some kind of work in the ancient languages (I have never seen
academic credentials in the form of degrees or transcripts), but some of the
mistakes he makes are at so basic a level of language knowledge that I sincerely doubt he knows ANY of the ancient languages he says he does. I'm
guessing that with Hebrew, for example, Mr. Sitchin (being Jewish) can
sight-read the language but doesn't understand ancient Biblical Hebrew grammar
(much like many English readers don't have a real grasp of the
mechanics of English grammar). I have seen little that convinces me that Mr. Sitchin
knows any ancient languages,
much less demonstrating that he is a language "expert". I say this because of Mr. Sitchin's
linguistic mistakes (see
below), and because he rarely interacts with scholarly articles pertaining to
any linguistic material in the texts he uses. Unfortunately, there are
even points he just makes up.

The reader should also know
that I believe that the strange phenomena people have experienced in antiquity
through the present day with respect to "UFOs" and
"aliens" are real. The
Facade offers an
alternative
paradigm to these phenomena, one that, contrary to Mr. Sitchin's reconstruction, CAN be defended
(if the connections be legitimate) through ancient texts.

Mr. Sitchin's
Errors: The Specifics

1) An
overview of Cylinder Seal VA 243

A fairly thorough treatment
of the problems with Sitchin's interpretation and use of this seal is
available (free) as a PDF file HERE.

2) A
Study of Nibiru

Again, a few of the basic
issues are explained here with a more
lengthy follow-up available in PDF form.

3) Mr. Sitchin
insists that "Elohim" in Genesis 1:26-27 is plural, thereby
"requiring" us to interpret that passage as supporting his idea that
extraterrestrial "gods" (The Annunaki) created humankind. (See
The 12th Planet, p. 337-338).

Mr. Sitchin's comments in this
regard show either a refusal to consider the Hebrew grammar
of this passage, or outright ignorance of that grammar (i.e., he just never
looked). "Elohim" does NOT always mean
"gods" (plural); the meaning of the term is to be determined by
grammatical and contextual clues. GRAMMAR
is IMPORTANT!
Grammar is to language what your graphical internet browser is to the
websites on the internet - it is the organizing vehicle that gives
meaning to the data -bits of information; without it you'd have to create
your own method of obtaining and understanding that information - it would
be totally SELF STYLED. Grammar dictates the formation of words, the
relationship of words to each other, and the meaning of those words with
respect to that arrangement.Without
attention to the rules of grammar
that have governed the languages of ancient texts, you
can make the texts say ANYTHING;
grammar is a control against total subjectivity. Sitchin ignores grammar in his work on elohim in this passage (and
others). The
PDF files below illustrate (from the Hebrew) that "elohim" often
refers to a "god" or "God" (proper name). Besides
this evidence from the Hebrew Bible,I
have also posted examples from ancient Mesopotamian texts (Akkadian) and the
famous El-Amarna texts (also Akkadian) where the plural word for
"gods" ('ilanu) refers to a single person or god
-
just as in
the case of Hebrew elohim.
Why
is Sitchin (and others) unaware of this material?
Someone trained in the ancient languages would
know about this - and if he
knows it, why doesn't he tell his readers!?

Here is the
PDF
file on Sitchin's erroneous teachings on the word
"elohim". The overheads include examples
of the Akkadian word for "gods"
(plural ilanu) used to refer to
SINGLE gods or individuals.

For an expanded
treatment of the meaning of Elohim, complete with visual examples (you need
not know Hebrew),click on the link below. Mr.
Sitchin's webmaster, Erik Parker, attempted to respond to my criticisms of
his mentor's work,
with disastrous results. In case the reader thinks I am picking on Mr.
Parker, it is fair to say the arguments he uses are Sitchin's, not his own
(he knows Sitchin's work very well). To
really see how poor Sitchin's scholarship is on the word Elohim
(as well as those who parrot his work, like Laurence Gardner and William
Henry), click here.

4) Mr. Sitchin contends that the word "Nephilim"
means "those who came down from above" or
"those who descended to earth" or "people of the fiery
rockets" (see The Twelfth Planet, pp. vii, 128ff.).

These translations, of course,
serve his purpose - to see the Nephilim as ancient
astronauts. As such it is hard to over-estimate the importance of
Sitchin's work here - if he's wrong about the meaning of
"nephilim," much of his overall thesis falls.

Unfortunately for Sitchin, such translations are
completely out of step with the Hebrew text and the word which is at the base of
"Nephilim." Once again ignoring the grammar of the text (and
actually making up his own word meaning in this case), Sitchin makes the following
errors, addressed in the PDF files
below.

Sitchin assumes
"Nephilim" comes from the Hebrew word "naphal" (as
opposed to ARAMAIC - see below) which
usually means "to fall." He then forces the meaning "to
come down" onto the word, creating his "to come down from
above" translation. "Nephilim" - in the form we find it
in the Hebrew Bible - COULD come from Hebrew "naphal," but it could ONLY
be translated one way in light of the spelling - "those who are
fallen" (i.e., either "fallen in battle" - which is out of the
question given the context of Genesis 6 - or "spiritually fallen" /
evil - which fits the context IF the sons of God are evil). To see that the
sons of God in Genesis 6 were evil divine beings and this cohabitation was evil, one needs
only to turn to either Jude 6-7 and II Peter 2:4-6, or the Book of Enoch.

The scholarly reasons
for
my assertion are demonstrated in thePDF
file
on the Nephilim. In short, if you care about
the grammar of Hebrew, Sitchin's word meanings CAN'T be correct.

The above file also
discusses Sitchin's confusion of the sons of God and the nephilim - and
evidence from his own book, Stairway to Heaven, that he cannot distinguish
between Hebrew and Aramaic! My suspicion behind this apparent blunder
is that Sitchin wants to distance the Annunaki from the evil Watchers of
ancient Jewish literature (Hebrew Bible, Enoch, and some Dead Sea
Scrolls).

Specifically,
the terms used by Mr. Sitchin to argue for ancient rockets and space flight are
Sumerian "MU" (Akkadian
"shamu"; Hebrew "shem")
and Sumerian "ME"
(see The 12th Planet, pp. 130 ff.). Mr. Sitchin argues in turn
that the
Genesis account of the tower of Babel, where the people wanted to make for
themselves a "shem," actually describes the construction of a flying craft/rocket.

There are a number of
difficulties with Sitchin's arguments and his use of the languages here.

A. The Meaning
of "MU", "shamu",, and "shem"

As
noted above, the ancient Mesopotamian scribes created
dictionaries. Lists of words are a
common feature among the thousands of Sumerian and Akkadian cuneiform tablets
which have been discovered by archaeologists.Many are just groupings of common words, while others represent an
inventory of the word meanings of the languages used in Mesopotamia.These "lexical lists", as scholars call them, were indispensable to the 19th century scholars
who deciphered the Sumerian and Akkadian texts, for they were used to compile
modern dictionaries of these languages.Today
all major lexical texts have been published in the multi-volume set, Materials
for the Sumerian Lexicon, begun by Benno Landsberger in the 1930s.It is
indeed a rare instance where ancient dictionaries of a dead language form the
core of the modern dictionaries used by scholars of today.Such is the case for the ancient languages of Sumer and Akkad.Sadly, Mr. Sitchin neglects
these resources.

The Meaning of Sumerian “MU”

On pages 140-143 of The
12th Planet, we read that Mr. Sitchin defines the Sumerian MU as
"an oval-topped, conical object,"
and "that which rises straight."Mr. Sitchin cites no Sumerian dictionary for these meanings.A check of the dictionaries contained in Sumerian grammars and the online
Sumerian dictionary reveal no such word meanings.But why trust modern scholars when we can check with the Mesopotamian
scribes themselves?

In his technical but
stimulating study of Sumerian and Mesopotamian terminology for the cosmos, Mesopotamian
Cosmic Geography, Mesopotamian scholar W. Horowitz lays out the meaning of
the Sumerian word “MU” directly as the Mesopotamian lexical lists have it.In
discussing the meaning of the Akkadian word “shamu,” in his book, Horowitz
gathered all the lexical list data for that word.What follows below is his layout.Note that the word “MU” in the left-hand (Sumerian) was among the
cuneiform dictionary entries for “shamu.” A discussion of the meanings
follows the entries.Briefly,
“shamu” in Akkadian here means “heaven” (or part of the sky/heavens) or
perhaps “rain.”According to the scribal tablets themselves, the meaning is not
"that which rises straight,” or “conical object” (i.e., “rocket
ship”). This is the verdict of the scribes themselves, not this writer.The red explanatory insertions are my own:

Mr. Sitchin goes on to claim (p. 143) that
the Sumerian syllable MU was adopted into Semitic languages as "SHU-MU,"
which he translates as "that which is a MU" (by implication, “that
which is a rocket ship”).Allegedly,
"SHU-MU" then morphed into Akkadian shamu and Biblical Hebrew shem.We will consider the Akkadian word first, and then the Hebrew word.

The Meaning of Akkadian “shamu”Does Akkadian shamu come from Sitchin’s "SHU-MU"?Does Sumerian even have a word that means "that which is a MU"?Contrary to Mr. Sitchin, Akkadian shamu does NOT derive from
SHU-MU, nor does shamu mean "that which is a MU."

First, Mr. Sitchin's translation of shu-mu presupposes that "SHU-"
is what's called in grammar a "relative pronoun" (the classification
of pronouns in all languages that mean: “that which”).Mr. Sitchin is apparently unaware of Sumerian grammar at this
point,
because the Sumerian language does not have a class of pronouns that are
relative pronouns!One need
only consult a Sumerian grammar to find this out, such as John L. Hayes, A
Manual of Sumerian Grammar (p.88).

Second, in light of the fact that there is no "SHU-MU" form in
Sumerian (since Sitchin’s relative pronoun “SHU-” is concocted), it
logically follows that Akkadian shamu did not derive from a
Sumerian “SHU-MU.” Nevertheless, Akkadian does have a word shumu, but
it does not come from Sumerian “SHU-MU” (since that combination never
existed in light of Sumerian grammar’s lack of the assumed relative pronoun).In fact, the shumu of Akkadian undermines Sitchin’s entire argument
when it comes to the Tower of Babel account (see below for more on Akkadian shumu).

Returning to shamu, the Akkadian word shamu can have multiple
meanings, depending on its original root origin.The lexical lists above presuppose a shamu that comes from the
Akkadian word shama'u or shamamu, both of which mean
"heaven," as in a place or portion of the sky.Notice how similar shamu is to both shama'u and shamamu.Only the extra letter marks them as different, marked either by an
apostrophe (shama'u) in English
or an “m” (shamamu).It
turns out that our word shamu in the lexical lists above is a contraction
of either shama'u or shamamu (the word loses a letter just like in
English "didn't" for "did not").The Meaning of Biblical Hebrew “shem”

As noted above, there is
an Akkadian word shumu. This word has its own meaning, a meaning that did
in fact get absorbed into Biblical Hebrew, from whence Hebrew shem
originated.Both this Akkadian shumu
and Hebrew shem mean “name” or “renown,” the word meanings Mr.
Sitchin ridicules in The 12th Planet on his way to fabricating
rocket ships in Mesopotamia and the Biblical Tower of Babel story.Other than the concocted word origin (SHU.MU), how do we know that Mr.
Sitchin’s word meanings are wrong?Here
are the entries in the gold standard Akkadian dictionary, The Chicago
Assyrian Dictionary painstakingly produced over several decades by scholars
of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago:

A Word on the Tower
of Babel Accounts in both Sumerian and Biblical Literature – The Common Sense
of Context

In the absence of any
linguistic support for his rocket ships, Mr. Sitchin’s supporters might claim
a linguistic cover-up.No, scholars
aren’t hiding “rocket ship” meanings in the cuneiform tablets.In fact, the discerning reader of the Sumerian and biblical Babel
accounts need not retreat to linguistics at all to know Mr. Sitchin’s theories
are nonsensical.Consider first the
biblical story of Genesis 11:1-9:

1
And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. 2 And it came to
pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of
Babylon; and they dwelt there. 3 And they said one to another, Go to, let us
make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime
had they for mortar. 4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a
tower, whose top [may reach] unto heaven; and let us make us a name (shem)
lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. 5 And the Lord
came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men built. 6
And the Lord said, Behold, the people are one, and they have all one language;
and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which
they have imagined to do. 7 Let us go; let us go down, and there confound
their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. 8 So the
Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and
they stopped building the city. 9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel;
because the Lord confounded the language of all the earth there: and from
thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

The
point here is brief.Note two
obvious facts from the plain English:

(1)The people are not building the shem; they are building “a
city and a tower” (verse 4).The
Hebrew words here are not shem in either case, they are ‘ir
(“city”; pronounced ghir) and migdal (“tower”).The word shem comes later in the verse, and is the purpose for
building the city and tower – to make a great name for themselves, just what
the Akkadian word shumu means!

(2)
The tower is being built with brick and mortar (verse 3) – what
rocket ships are made of bricks and mortar?

Again, Mr. Sitchin’s supporters could
claim some sort of Christian or Jewish conspiracy to obscure the construction of
a rocket ship.If so, then the
Sumerians themselves started the cover-up (leaving only Mr. Sitchin correct).Here’s their version, from Enuma Elish (Tablet VI:
lines 59-64):

The
Anunnaki set to with hoes

(Unusual
tools for rocket-building!)

One full year they made
its bricks

(A
rocket made of bricks! Sounds like a building to me)

They raised up
Esagila,
the counterpart to Apsu,

They built the high
ziggurat
of counterpart Apsu

(A
ziggurat, not a shem or shumu)

For Anu-Enlil-Ea they
founded his dwelling.

So,
in the very story Mr. Sitchin uses to create a parallel
between Sumer and the Old Testament, the Anunnaki are clearly constructing a
tower made of bricks – not a spaceship.

B. The Meaning of
"ME"

To begin his argument,
Sitchin quotes the following lines from an unnamed text (p. 130; why doesn't he give sources?).
The text is most likely from the Descent of Inanna:

She (Inanna) placed the
SHU.GAR.RA on her her head.
She arranged the dark
locks of hair across her forehead.
She tied the small
lapis beads around her neck.
Let the double strand of beads fall to her breast,
And wrapped the royal
robe (PALA) around her body.

Although the word
"ME" is not in this text, Sitchin insists that the SHU.GAR.RA is
a space helmet. The object is surely some type of headgear, as is
evident from the statuary Sitchin reproduces in his book (p. 132).
That it involves SPACE TRAVEL is a fabrication, based on some presumed
connection between it and a passage he quotes on page 136, which describes
the ME that Enlil fastens to Inanna's body, objects which Inanna wears for
her journeys in the "Boat of Heaven" (and so, for Sitchin, space gear or a space
suit). Enlil announces to her:

You have lifted the ME
You have tied the ME to your hands
You have gathered the ME
You have attached the ME to your breast
O Queen of all the ME, O radiant light
Who with her hands grasps the seven ME

Where's the space travel
part?
That comes with Sitchin's interpretation of the "Boat of
Heaven" in which Inanna rides - the MU. Inanna TAKES the ME's with her on her
trip in the MU. Naturally, Sitchin's interpretation of the above depends on
whether the MU is a flying craft, which even the Mesopotamians would deny (see
A. above).

The word ME in
other Sumerian texts describing Inanna's journey wearing the SHU.GAR.RA is
used
dozens of times for objects that are NOT worn.
Specifically, the
famous text Inanna and Enki deals with Inanna's desire to
"possess the ME" of Enki. In this work, ME can refer to:
(a) abstract ideas, like rulership, godship, shepherdship,
priestess-ship, the throne of kingship, dishonesty, kissing, extinguishing
fire, etc.; (b) activities, such as love-making, prostitution, slander,
plunder, writing, leather-working, arguing, mat-weaving, and
washing; and (c) concrete objects, like a black dress, hair, a sheepfold,
descendants, etc.

This data is what
leads scholars to
define "ME" as either "cultural norms (which can be stored
like concrete objects) or banners that represent these objects or ideas"
(see "Inanna and Enki," pp. 518ff. in The Context of Scripture, vol
1: Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World, ed. W. Hallo
and K. L. Younger; Brill, 2000). What
would love-making have to do with flying in a spaceship? Hair?
Washing? Etc.! In
all, there are 94 "ME's" in the above text, NONE of which have
any clear connection to flight.